I confess that I fall behind in reading some of the books that come my way for review. A while back, I received a book on evolution that I just didn’t know when I’d get down to reading — but it just so happened that my friend Mike is interested in the subject and was already doing some reading on it. In the interest of getting a review posted sooner rather than later, I passed along the book to get his opinion — his review follows. In addition to these comments, Mike has also recommended Michael Spencer’s review, where Michael Dowd actually joins the comment thread part way through, making for an interesting discussion.
Michael Dowd dedicates his new book, Thank God for Evolution!: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World, “to the glory of God*.” Yes, that’s God with an asterisk. The footnote called out by the asterisk reads “Not any ‘God’ we may think about, speak about, believe in, or deny, but the one true God we all know and experience.” This is your first clue that this is not the book to give to your conservative evangelical friend if your hope is to persuade him, or at least have him consider it possible, that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection and core Christian tenets are compatible. This book is more likely to convince your friend of the opposite.
Because Michael Dowd’s “God*” is definitely not the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. The author is clearly not interested in finding common ground between science and religion, specifically evolution and traditional Christianity. The author’s intent is to marry evolution to all the great religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism) by imploring each tradition to embrace evolution as our common creation story, the Great Story, he calls it. His vision is for each religion to reinterpret their various scriptures and ancient texts through an evolutionary lens, so that we all eventually become Evolutionary Christians, Evolutionary Buddhists, etc. Cultures that are in conflict today would achieve unprecedented harmony. Perhaps this is Dowd’s vision of “Heaven”.
The author asserts that “God” is simply our human, language-limited way of referring to the “Ultimate Wholeness of Reality”, or the “Supreme Wholeness”, or “that Ultimate Creative Reality that brought everything, step-by-step, into existence”. He encourages the reader, stating that this view of the divine moves us away from merely believing into knowing. It’s a God that we cannot deny. Although he is careful to qualify this idea by insisting that his view of “God” does not reduce the Creator to Creation, if his theology is not pantheistic, it certainly comes across as panentheistic.
The author coins the terms “night language” and “day language” to label what he posits are two sides of the experiential coin. Day language is used to describe “what’s so”: factual information, that which is measurable and is objectively real. Night language is focused on personal or cultural meaning, that which is subjectively real. Dowd afixes the “night language” label squarely on a myriad of Christian phrases and concepts, such as as “the Kingdom of God”, “Christ-like”, “The Fall” or “Original Sin”, “Personal Salvation”, “Saving Faith”, “Heaven” and “Hell”, “Satan”, “the Second Coming of Christ”, etc.
Due to the author’s Christian background (Michael Dowd grew up Roman Catholic, earned a Master of Divinty degree from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and has pastored three United Church of Christ congregations), a hefty portion of the book is dedicated to reinterpreting various Christian doctrines through an evolutionary lens. The exercise involves taking the various Christian doctrines written in “night language” and “REALizing” them by providing the “day language” reinterpretation. The discussion is quite interesting but ultimately unsatisfying, as all the mystery of God is REALized out the window. And the literary device of capitalizing REAL in realize is immediately annoying.
This is definitely a book for those who are unafraid of questioning things, considering other ideas and perspectives, but will ultimately think for themselves. It is not for those who are scared that accepting evolution will put us on a “slippery slope”, whereby rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 must lead to questioning everything else written in the Bible, and that must ultimately end with the destruction of our faith in Jesus Christ as our literal, risen Saviour, the core doctrine of the Christian religion. This book will only confirm their worst fears about evolution.
Mike’s review is hardly a ringing endorsement, but hopefully it does provide an indication of who would find this book challenging and helpful. In my conversations with Mike, I gathered that people who would have difficulty with Dowd’s work would be much happier with Francis Collins’ The Language of God.
Subscribe Posts
June 10th, 2008 at 8:11 am
DARWINISM AND CHRISTIANITY ARE NOT COMPATIBLE.
To wit, the following dissertation on Darwin is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a series of seven books on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect.
On the outset, the reader should be aware that Darwin was a self-proclaimed agnostic; he did not deny the possibility that God exists but believed it was beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is, indeed, any divine force. Darwin, in response to an invitation to become a Patron of the Cat Show (September 18, 1872), lightheartedly referred to himself and cronies as “atheistical cats.” By definition, an atheist either does not believe in, or denies the existence of God. Regardless of the profile, agnostics and atheists alike believe that all questions concerning origins, being, and the like may be explained fully by material phenomena and logic; scientists have since added a third dimension, the orderly application of mathematics, called electronic interpretation—read the matter in detail in Volume 1.
A cultural note: a marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned, “For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [men who 'hold the truth in unrighteousness'] are without excuse” (Romans 1:20-22). The things God created are aptly referred to as “the glory of God.”
In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God. There are, however, men who do “not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty: “Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:21, 22).
In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient—willful, “done on purpose; deliberate.” The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified; please read on.
Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity—objectively, “uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas.” In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he “could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.
In order to access an online, audible Bible, and to read the biblical verses in context, go here: http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
You may wish to bookmark the site. RealPlayer is required to listen to the Audio Bible.
Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the “constant inculcation” (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God” during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as “for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.” With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an “agnostic.” The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.
The Old Testament did not escape Darwin’s inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that “the manifestly false history of the earth….was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian.” Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale. As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the “volumne (sic) on the origin of species…light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history,” meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God—there is no God.
You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.
The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Wow! I wonder if C. David searches out blog posts about Evolution and Christianity and a cut and paste later . . .
I don’t know what to say to all that. Except, I am a Christian and I believe God created the universe and everything in it. I also accept evolution. Regardless of Darwin’s personal religious beliefs, I find no reason for conflict between Darwininian Evolution (science) and Christianity (religion) anymore.